Cover not available
Article published In:
Sign Language & Linguistics
Vol. 19:1 (2016) ► pp.37–81

Taking meaning in hand

Iconic motivations in two-handed signs

| Department of Linguistics, University of California, San Diego, USA
| Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
| Sign Language Research Laboratory, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel
Traditionally in sign language research, the issue of whether a lexical sign is articulated with one hand or two has been treated as a strictly phonological matter. We argue that accounting for two-handed signs also requires considering meaning as a motivating factor. We report results from a Swadesh list comparison, an analysis of semantic patterns among two-handed signs, and a picture-naming task. Comparing four unrelated languages, we demonstrate that the two hands are recruited to encode various relationship types in sign language lexicons. We develop the general principle that inherently “plural” concepts are straightforwardly mapped onto our paired human hands, resulting in systematic use of the two hands across sign languages. In our analysis, “plurality” subsumes four primary relationship types — interaction, location, dimension, and composition — and we predict that signs with meanings that encompass these relationships — such as ‘meet’, ‘empty’, ‘large’, or ‘machine’ — will preferentially be two-handed in any sign language.
Keywords: lexical patterns, iconicity, Swedish Sign Language (SSL), Israeli Sign Language (ISL), Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language (ABSL), two-handed signs, American Sign Language (ASL)
Published online: 15 September 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.19.1.02lep
References (116)
Acquaviva, Paolo. 2008. Lexical plurals. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ahlgren, Inger & Brita Bergman. 2006. Det svenska teckenspråket. Teckenspråk och teckenspråkiga: Kunskaps- och forskningsöversikt (SOU 2006:291), 11–70. Statens offentliga utredningar.Google Scholar
Al-Fityani, Kinda & Carol Padden. 2010. Sign languages in the Arab world. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Sign languages: A Cambridge language survey, 433–450. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 2007. In the beginning was the word. Language 83(4). 803–830. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark, Irit Meir, Carol Padden & Wendy Sandler. 2008. The roots of linguistic organization in a new language. Interaction Studies 9(1). 133–153. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark, Irit Meir & Wendy Sandler. 2005. The paradox of sign language morphology. Language 811. 301–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Battison, Robbin. 1978. Lexical borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press.Google Scholar
Benedicto, Elena & Diane Brentari. 2004. Where did all the arguments go?: Argument-changing properties of classifiers in ASL. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22(4). 743–810. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergen, Benjamin K. 2004. The psychological reality of phonaesthemes. Language 80(2). 290–311. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Bergman, Brita. 1979. Signed Swedish. Stockholm: Liber.Google Scholar
. 1982a. Teckenspråkstranskription (Forskning om teckenspråk X). Stockholm: Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
. 1982b. Sign typology (Forskning om teckenspråk XI). Stockholm: Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
. 1983. Verbs and adjectives: Morphological processes in Swedish Sign Language. In Jim Kyle & Bencie Woll (eds.), Language in sign: An international perspective on sign language, 3–9. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Bergman, Brita & Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen. 2010. Transmission of sign languages in the Nordic countries. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Sign languages: A Cambridge language survey, 74–94. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergman, Brita & Johanna Mesch. 2004. ECHO data set for Swedish Sign Language (SSL). Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Björkstrand, Thomas. 2016. Swedish Sign Language dictionary online. Stockholm: Sign Language Section, Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University. teckensprakslexikon.su.se.Google Scholar
Blevins, James P., Farrell Ackerman & Robert Malouf. 2016. Morphology as an adaptive discriminative system. In Heidi Harley & Daniel Siddiqi (eds.), Morphological metatheory, 271–302. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York, NY: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
Brennan, Mary. 1990. Word formation in British Sign Language. Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane. 1998. A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane & John A. Goldsmith. 1993. Secondary licensing and the nondominant hand in ASL phonology. In Geoffrey R. Coulter (ed.), Current issues in ASL phonology: Phonetics and phonology 31, 19–41. New York, NY & San Francisco, CA: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 2004. Historical linguistics, 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville. 2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crasborn, Onno. 2011. The other hand in sign language phonology. In Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, Vol. 11, 223–240. Malden, MA & Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crasborn, Onno, Johanna Mesch, Dafydd Waters, Els van der Kooij, Bencie Woll & Brita Bergman. 2007. Sharing sign language data online. Experiences from the ECHO project. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 12(4). 535–562. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delbrück, Berthold. 1893. Vergleichende Syntax der Indogermanischen Sprachen: Erster Teil. Strassburg: Trübner. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark. 2012. Advances in the cross-linguistic study of ideophones. Linguistics and Language Compass 6(10). 654–672. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Emmorey, Karen. 2002. Language, cognition, and the brain: Insights from sign language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(ed.). 2003. Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Iconicity as structure mapping. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 369(1651). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Susan D. 1973. Two processes of reduplication in the American Sign Language. Foundations of Language 91. 469–480.Google Scholar
Friedman, Lynn A. 1977. On the other hand: New perspectives on American Sign Language. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Frishberg, Nancy. 1975. Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in American Sign Language. Language 51(3). 696–719. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1957. Essays in linguistics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Guerra Currie, Anne-Marie P., Richard P. Meier & Keith Walters. 2002. A crosslinguistic examination of the lexicons of four signed languages. In Richard P. Meier, Kearsy Cormier & David Quinto-Pozos (eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken language, 224–237. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer B. & R. Harald Baayen. 2005. Shifting paradigms: Gradient structure in morphology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9(7). 342–348. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Hellquist, Elof. 1922. Svensk etymologisk ordbok. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerups förlag.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2). 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hulst, Harry van der. 1996. On the other hand. Lingua 981. 121–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Trevor & Adam Schembri. 1999. On defining lexeme in a signed language. Sign Language & Linguistics 2(2). 115–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kastner, Itamar, Irit Meir, Wendy Sandler & Svetlana Dachkovsky. 2014. The emergence of embedded structure: Insights from Kafr Qasem Sign Language. Frontiers in Psychology 5(525). 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kisch, Shifra. 2008. “Deaf discourse”: The social construction of deafness in a Bedouin community. Medical Anthropology 27(3). 283–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Demarcating generations of signers in the dynamic sociolinguistic landscape of a shared sign language: The case of the Al-Sayyid Bedouin. In Ulrike Zeshan & Connie de Vos (eds.), Sign languages in village communitites: Anthropological and linguistic insights, 87–126. Berlin & Nijmegen: Mouton de Gruyter & Ishara Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klima, Edward S. & Ursula Bellugi. 1979. The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kooij, Els van der. 2002. Phonological categories in Sign Language of the Netherlands: The role of phonetic implementation and iconicity. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam PhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria & Bernhard Wälchli. 2001. The Circum-Baltic languages. In Östen Dahl & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.), Circum-Baltic languages. Volume 2: Grammar and typology, vol. 551, 615–750. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kwon, Nahyun & Erich R. Round. 2015. Phonaesthemes in morphological theory. Morphology 25(1). 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kyle, Jim G. & Bencie Woll (eds.). 1985. Sign language: The study of deaf people and their language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1990. Concept, image, symbol. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lepic, Ryan. 2015. Motivation in morphology: Lexical patterns in ASL and English. San Diego, CA: University of California PhD dissertation. (Retrieved from [URL]).Google Scholar
Liddell, Scott K & Robert E. Johnson. 1989. American Sign Language: The phonological base. Sign Language Studies 641. 195–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liddell, Scott K. 2003. Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malkiel, Yakov. 1967. Each word has a history of its own. Glossa 11. 137–149.Google Scholar
Meir, Irit. 2002. A cross-modality perspective on verb agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 201. 413–450. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Iconicity and metaphor: Constraints on metaphorical extension of iconic forms. Language 86(4). 865–896. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meir, Irit, Mark Aronoff, Wendy Sandler & Carol Padden. 2004. Sign languages and compounding. In Sergio Scalise & Irene Vogel (eds.), Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding, 301–322. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meir, Irit, Assaf Israel, Wendy Sandler, Carol Padden & Mark Aronoff. 2012. The influence of community size on language structure. Linguistic Variation 12(2). 247–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meir, Irit, Carol Padden, Mark Aronoff & Wendy Sandler. 2013. Competing iconicities in the structure of languages. Cognitive Linguistics 24(2). 309–343. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meir, Irit & Wendy Sandler. 2008. A language in space: The story of Israeli Sign Language. New York, NY & London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Meir, Irit, Wendy Sandler, Carol A. Padden & Mark Aronoff (eds.). 2012. Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language: A dictionary. Haifa & San Diego, CA: Sign Language Research Lab, University of Haifa & Center for Research in Language, UCSD.Google Scholar
Meir, Irit, Wendy Sandler, Carol Padden & Mark Aronoff. 2010. Emerging sign languages. In Mark Marschark & Patricia E. Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language and education, 267–280. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Napoli, Donna Jo & Jeff Wu. 2003. Morpheme structure constraints on two-handed signs in American Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 6(2). 123–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Wendy Sandler. 1999. Prosody in Israeli Sign Language. Language and Speech 42(2-3). 143–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1992. Iconicity and Generative Grammar. Language 68(4). 756–796. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nilsson, Anna-Lena. 2007. The non-dominant hand in a Swedish Sign Language discourse. In Myriam Vermeerbergen, Lorraine Leeson & Onno Crasborn (eds.), Simultaneity in signed languages: Form and function, 163–185. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
OED. 2013. Oxford English dictionary online. Oxford University Press. [URL] (8 October, 2013).Google Scholar
Özyürek, Aslı, Inge Zwitserlood & Pamela Perniss. 2010. Locative expressions in signed languages: A view from Turkish Sign Language (TİD). Linguistics 48(5). 1111–1145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Padden, Carol. 1988. Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. New York, NY & London: Garland Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar
Padden, Carol, So-One Hwang, Ryan Lepic & Sharon Seegers. 2015. Tools for language: Patterned iconicity in sign language nouns and verbs. Topics in Cognitive Science 71. 81–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Padden, Carol, Irit Meir, So-One Hwang, Ryan Lepic, Sharon Seegers & Tory Sampson. 2013. Patterned iconicity in sign language lexicons. Gesture 13(3). 181–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Padden, Carol, Irit Meir, Wendy Sandler & Mark Aronoff. 2010. Against all expectations: Encoding subjects and objects in a new language. In Donna Gerdts, John Moore & Maria Polinsky (eds.), Hypothesis A/hypothesis B: Linguistic explorations in honor of David M. Perlmutter, 383–400. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Padden, Carol & David M. Perlmutter. 1987. American Sign Language and the architecture of phonological theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 51. 335–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perniss, Pamela, Robin L. Thompson & Gabriella Vigliocco. 2010. Iconicity as a general property of language: Evidence from spoken and signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology 11 (December 2010). 227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pfau, Roland & Enoch O. Aboh. 2012. On the syntax of spatial adpositions in sign languages. In Evan Cohen (ed.), Proceedings of IATL 27 (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 65), 83–104. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pfau, Roland & Markus Steinbach. 2006. Pluralization in sign and in speech: A cross-modal typological study. Linguistic Typology 10(2). 135–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pizzuto, Elena & Serena Corazza. 1996. Noun morphology in Italian Sign Language (LIS). Lingua 98(1). 169–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prillwitz, Siegmund, Regina Leven, Heiko Zienert, Thomas Hanke & Jan Henning. 1989. HamNoSys: Version 2.0. Hamburg: Signum Verlag.Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor. 1978. Principles of categorization. In Eleanor Rosch & Barbara B. Lloyd (eds.), Cognition and categorization, 27–48. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sandler, Wendy. 1989. Phonological representation of the sign: Linearity and nonlinearity in sign language phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1993. Hand in hand: The roles of the nondominant hand in sign language phonology. The Linguistic Review 101. 337–390. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995. Markedness in the handshapes of sign language: A componential analysis. In Jeroen van der Weijer & Harry van der Hulst (eds.), Leiden in last: Holland Institute of Linguistics phonology papers, 369–399. The Hague: Holland Academie Graphics.Google Scholar
. 1999a. Cliticization and prosodic words in a sign language. In Tracy Hall & Ursula Kleinhenz (eds.), Studies on the phonological word, 223–255. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999b. Prosody in two natural language modalities. Language and Speech 42(2-3). 127–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Phonology, phonetics, and the nondominant hand. In Louis Goldstein, D.H. Whalen & Catherine Best (eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology: Varieties of phonological competence, 185–212. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2012. The phonological organization of sign languages. Language and Linguistics Compass 6(3). 162–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy, Mark Aronoff, Irit Meir & Carol Padden. 2011. The gradual emergence of phonological form in a new language. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29(2). 503–543. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy, Mark Aronoff, Carol Padden & Irit Meir. 2014. Language emergence: Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language. In Nick Enfield, Paul Kockelman & Jack Sidnell (eds.), Cambridge handbook of linguistic anthropology, 250–284. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy & Diane Lillo-Martin. 2006. Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy, Irit Meir, Carol Padden & Mark Aronoff. 2005. The emergence of grammar: Systematic structure in a new language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102(7). 2661–2665. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1959. Course in general linguistics. Translated, with an introduction and notes by Wade Baskin. (ed.) Charles Bally & Albert Sechehaye. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Savir, Hava. 1992. Gateway to Israeli Sign Language (First Version). Tel Aviv: The Association of the Deaf in Israel.Google Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe. 2011. Iconic agreement. Theoretical Linguistics 37(3-4). 223–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe, Jonathan Lamberton & Mirko Santoro. 2013. Iconic variables. Linguistics & Philosophy 36(2). 91–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, Daryl A., Rivka Carmi, Khalil Eldebour, Geoffrey M. Duyk, Edwin M. Stone & Val Sheffield. 1995. Nonsyndromic autosomal recessive deafness is linked to the DFNB1 locus in a large inbred Bedouin family from Israel. American Journal of Human Genetics 57(4). 965–968.Google Scholar
Siple, Patricia. 1978. Visual constraints for sign language communication. Sign Language Studies 191. 95–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stokoe, William C. 1960. Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication system of the American Deaf (Studies in linguistics: Occasional papers 8). Buffalo, NY: Dept. of Anthropology and Linguistics, University of Buffalo.Google Scholar
Supalla, Ted. 1986. The classifier system in American Sign Language. In Collette G. Craig (ed.), Noun classification and categorization, 181–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1978. Figure and Ground in complex sentences. In Joseph H Greenberg (ed.), Universals of human language, vol. 4, Syntax, 625–649. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics, Vol. I1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2003. The representation of spatial structure in spoken and signed language. In Karen Emmorey (ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages, 169–195. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Taub, Sarah F. 2001. Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor in ASL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tennant, Richard A. & Marianne Gluszak Brown. 2010. The American Sign Language handshape dictionary, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Valli, Clayton & Ceil Lucas. 1995. The linguistics of American Sign Language: A resource text for ASL users. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Van Cleve, John Vickrey & Barry A. Crouch. 1989. A place of their own: Creating the Deaf community in America. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Vermeerbergen, Myriam, Lorraine Leeson & Onno Crasborn (eds.). 2007. Simultaneity in signed languages: Form and function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wallin, Lars. 1996. Polysynthetic signs in Swedish Sign Language. Stockholm: Stockholm University, Dept. of Linguistics PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1988. Oats and wheat: Mass nouns, iconicity, and human categorization. In Anna Wierzbicka (ed.), The semantics of grammar, 499–560. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilbur, Ronnie B. 2008. Complex predicates involving events, time and aspect: Is this why sign languages look so similar? In Josep Quer (ed.), Signs of the time: Selected papers from TISLR 2004, 217–250. Hamburg: Signum Verlag.Google Scholar
Wilcox, Sherman. 1992. The phonetics of fingerspelling. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Cognitive iconicity: Conceptual spaces, meaning, and gesture in signed languages. Cognitive Linguistics 15(2). 119–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Margaret. 2002. Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 9(4). 625–636. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wisniewski, Edward J. 2010. On using count nouns, mass nouns, and pluralia tantum: What counts? In Francis Jeffry Pelletier (ed.), Kinds, things, and stuff: Mass terms and generics, 1–24. Oxford Scholarship Online. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woll, Bencie, Onno Crasborn, Els van der Kooij, Johanna Mesch & Brita Bergman. 2010. Extended Swadesh list for signed languages. [URL].
Woodward, James C. 1976. Signs of change: Historical variation in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 101. 81–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeshan, Ulrike & Connie de Vos (eds.). 2012. Sign languages in village communities: Anthropological and linguistic insights. Berlin & Nijmegen: Mouton de Gruyter & Ishara Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (39)

Cited by 39 other publications

Napoli, Donna Jo & Nathan Sanders
2024. An approach to path movement in the diachronic study of sign languages. Diachronica DOI logo
Pleyer, Michael, Ryan Lepic & Stefan Hartmann
2024. Compositionality in Different Modalities: A View from Usage-Based Linguistics. International Journal of Primatology 45:3 ► pp. 670 ff. DOI logo
Źywiczyński, Przemysław & Jordan Zlatev
2024. The Role of Gesture in Debates on the Origins of Language. In The Cambridge Handbook of Gesture Studies, ► pp. 335 ff. DOI logo
Bradley, Chuck & Ronnie Wilbur
2023. Visual Form and Event Semantics Predict Transitivity in Silent Gestures: Evidence for Compositionality. Cognitive Science 47:8 DOI logo
Cohen-Koka, Shirit, Bracha Nir & Irit Meir
2023. Variation of sign parameters in narrative and expository discourse. Sign Language & Linguistics 26:2 ► pp. 218 ff. DOI logo
Moita, Mara, Ana Maria Abreu & Ana Mineiro
2023. Iconicity in the emergence of a phonological system?. Journal of Language Evolution 8:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Zwitserlood, Inge, Els van der Kooij & Onno Crasborn
2023. Units of sub-sign meaning in NGT. Sign Language & Linguistics 26:2 ► pp. 276 ff. DOI logo
Bradley, Chuck, Evie A. Malaia, Jeffrey Mark Siskind, Ronnie B. Wilbur & Marcus Perlman
2022. Visual form of ASL verb signs predicts non-signer judgment of transitivity. PLOS ONE 17:2 ► pp. e0262098 ff. DOI logo
Brentari, Diane, Rabia Ergin, Ann Senghas, Pyeong Whan Cho, Eli Owens & Marie Coppola
2021. Community interactions and phonemic inventories in emerging sign languages. Phonology 38:4 ► pp. 571 ff. DOI logo
Lepic, Ryan
2021. From letters to families. In Constructions in Contact 2 [Constructional Approaches to Language, 30], ► pp. 268 ff. DOI logo
Pouw, Wim, Mark Dingemanse, Yasamin Motamedi & Aslı Özyürek
2021. A Systematic Investigation of Gesture Kinematics in Evolving Manual Languages in the Lab. Cognitive Science 45:7 DOI logo
Tkachman, Oksana, Gracellia Purnomo & Bryan Gick
2021. Repetition Preferences in Two-Handed Balanced Signs: Vestigial Locomotor Central Pattern Generators Shape Sign Language Phonetics and Phonology. Frontiers in Communication 5 DOI logo
Żywiczyński, Przemysław, Sławomir Wacewicz & Casey Lister
2021. Pantomimic fossils in modern human communication. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 376:1824 DOI logo
ANIBLE, BENJAMIN
2020. Iconicity in American Sign Language–English translation recognition. Language and Cognition 12:1 ► pp. 138 ff. DOI logo
Börstell, Carl & Ryan Lepic
2020. Spatial metaphors in antonym pairs across sign languages. Sign Language & Linguistics 23:1-2 ► pp. 112 ff. DOI logo
Donazzan, Marta & Luciana Sanchez-Mendes
2020. Decomposing distribution across dimensions: evidence from Libras. DELTA: Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada 36:1 DOI logo
Haluts, Neta, Massimiliano Trippa, Naama Friedmann & Alessandro Treves
2020. Professional or Amateur? The Phonological Output Buffer as a Working Memory Operator. Entropy 22:6 ► pp. 662 ff. DOI logo
MAKAROĞLU, Bahtiyar
2020. Türk İşaret Dilinde Anlamsal Bağlantılığın ve Gösterimselliğin Sözlüksel Erişime Etkisi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 37:2 ► pp. 276 ff. DOI logo
OCCHINO, CORRINE, BENJAMIN ANIBLE & JILL P. MORFORD
2020. The role of iconicity, construal, and proficiency in the online processing of handshape. Language and Cognition 12:1 ► pp. 114 ff. DOI logo
Brentari, Diane
2019. Sign Language Phonology, DOI logo
Gu, Shengyun
2019. The feature system of handshapes and phonological processes in Shanghai Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 22:1 ► pp. 118 ff. DOI logo
Krebs, Julia, Ronnie B. Wilbur, Phillip M. Alday & Dietmar Roehm
2019. The Impact of Transitional Movements and Non-Manual Markings on the Disambiguation of Locally Ambiguous Argument Structures in Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS). Language and Speech 62:4 ► pp. 652 ff. DOI logo
Kuhn, Jeremy
2019. Pluractionality and distributive numerals. Language and Linguistics Compass 13:2 DOI logo
Napoli, Donna Jo & Stephanie Liapis
2019. Effort reduction in articulation in sign languages and dance. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science 3:1 ► pp. 31 ff. DOI logo
SEVCIKOVA SEHYR, ZED & KAREN EMMOREY
2019. The perceived mapping between form and meaning in American Sign Language depends on linguistic knowledge and task: evidence from iconicity and transparency judgments. Language and Cognition 11:2 ► pp. 208 ff. DOI logo
Żywiczyński, Przemysław
2019. How research on language evolution contributes to linguistics. Yearbook of the Poznan Linguistic Meeting 5:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Lepic, Ryan & Corrine Occhino
2018. A Construction Morphology Approach to Sign Language Analysis. In The Construction of Words [Studies in Morphology, 4], ► pp. 141 ff. DOI logo
Meir, Irit & Ariel Cohen
2018. Metaphor in Sign Languages. Frontiers in Psychology 9 DOI logo
Nyst, Victoria
2018. Cross-linguistic variation in space-based distance for size depiction in the lexicons of six sign languages. Sign Language & Linguistics 21:2 ► pp. 350 ff. DOI logo
Perlman, Marcus, Hannah Little, Bill Thompson & Robin L. Thompson
2018. Iconicity in Signed and Spoken Vocabulary: A Comparison Between American Sign Language, British Sign Language, English, and Spanish. Frontiers in Psychology 9 DOI logo
Östling, Robert, Carl Börstell & Servane Courtaux
2018. Visual Iconicity Across Sign Languages: Large-Scale Automated Video Analysis of Iconic Articulators and Locations. Frontiers in Psychology 9 DOI logo
HWANG, SO-ONE, NOZOMI TOMITA, HOPE MORGAN, RABIA ERGIN, DENIZ İLKBAŞARAN, SHARON SEEGERS, RYAN LEPIC & CAROL PADDEN
2017. Of the body and the hands: patterned iconicity for semantic categories. Language and Cognition 9:4 ► pp. 573 ff. DOI logo
Sandler, Wendy
2017. The Challenge of Sign Language Phonology. Annual Review of Linguistics 3:1 ► pp. 43 ff. DOI logo
Sandler, Wendy
2018. The Body as Evidence for the Nature of Language. Frontiers in Psychology 9 DOI logo
Sandler, Wendy
2021. Chapter 4. Signs and words. In All Things Morphology [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 353], ► pp. 57 ff. DOI logo
Sandler, Wendy
2022. Redefining Multimodality. Frontiers in Communication 6 DOI logo
Sandler, Wendy
2024. Speech and sign: the whole human language. Theoretical Linguistics 50:1-2 ► pp. 107 ff. DOI logo
Sandler, Wendy & Diane Lillo‐Martin
2017. Sign Languages. In The Handbook of Linguistics, ► pp. 371 ff. DOI logo
Börstell, Carl, Ryan Lepic & Gal Belsitzman
2016. Articulatory plurality is a property of lexical plurals in sign language. Lingvisticae Investigationes 39:2 ► pp. 391 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.